"M. R. Brown" <mrbrown@0xd6.org> writes:
> * Benoit Poulot-Cazajous <poulot@ifrance.com> on Wed, Dec 19, 2001:
>
> >
> > But gcc-2.95,x _supports_ "-march=k6", and we should use that instead of
> > "-march-i686".
> >
>
> No, k6 != athlon. IIRC, the i686 optimization is closer to the Athlon than
> the k6 opt.
In theory, you may be right. But gcc-2.95.3 may not follow the theory.
> > before the patch :
> > 1017.92user 261.80system 24:39.89elapsed 86%CPU
> > 706.33user 160.79system 16:23.61elapsed 88%CPU
> > 1787.38user 418.76system 43:35.97elapsed 84%CPU
> >
> > after the patch :
> > 1018.42user 253.85system 24:44.68elapsed 85%CPU
> > 704.89user 151.76system 16:16.14elapsed 87%CPU
> > 1786.96user 410.76system 43:05.32elapsed 85%CPU
> >
> > The improvement in system time is nice.
> >
>
> Er, there's not much difference...
>From 261.80 to 253.85 => -3%
>From 160.79 to 151.76 => -6%
>From 418.76 to 410.76 => -2%
So the kernel looks between 2 and 6% faster. Not so bad for a one-line
patch ;-)
> Curious, what happens when you compile using gcc 3.0.1 against
> -march=athlon?
Yep, I will try with gcc 3.0.3.
-- Benoit
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 23 2001 - 21:00:20 EST